1978 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 31st Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 1978

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2305 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

School taxes. Mr. Barber — 2305

Location of Premier's staff. Mr. Lea — 2305

GAIN benefits. Mr. Gibson — 2306

School taxes. Mr. Stephens — 2306

ICBC and Royal Insurance Ltd. Mr. Cocke — 2307

Log dump in Cowichan estuary. Mrs. Wallace — 2307

Mobile Home'Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill 26) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Curtis — 2308

Mr. Barber — 2308

Second reading — 2309

Forest Act (Bill 14) Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Waterland — 2311

Mr. King 2312

Mr. Barrett — 2325

Mr. Levi — 2331

Mr. Lockstead — 2337

Wrongful Dismissal Act (Bill M 218) Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading — 2340

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 14, 1978

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: The gentleman leading us in prayers today is

from the constituency of Saanich and the Islands, the Rev. Charles

Barker of Sidney Pentecostal Church. In view of his close association

with one constituency, would the House like to welcome him?

MR. CALDER: I would like the hon. members to join me in

welcoming two arrivals from Tokyo: Mrs. Koshibe, my mother-in-law —

this is her first visit to Canada — and, of course, my wife Tamaki.

MR. SHELFORD: I would like the members to welcome Mayor Fred Shortreid, Andy Beerda, Barry Holmberg and Ron Purnell, all of Smithers.

MR. BARNES: I would like to ask the House to join me in

welcoming a former member of the B.C. Lions team in absentia. He was

here, but he had to leave. Mr. Duke Washington from Seattle was up for

the 25th anniversary celebrations in Vancouver over the past few days,

and I would just like the House to make him welcome in absentia.

Oral questions.

SCHOOL TAXES

MR. BARBER: I have a question for the Minister of Education.

The school board of Greater Victoria, which the Minister of Education

has praised for closing schools to cut costs, has published in the form

of an advertisement an official statement that indicates that its total

budget increased only 1.5 per cent this year, but which also indicates

that taxation for school purposes has increased in the same school

district by 15.45 per cent. Does the minister deny the statement of

School District 61 that the reason is that a larger share of education

costs has been assigned to local taxpayers by the Ministry of Education?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARBER: On a supplementary question. Now that School District 61

has also been accused by this government of sneaky and deceptive practices,

specifically by the minister just now who denied the statement they made, will

the minister also deny a statement further made by the board that the minister's

action is directly responsible for adding no less than $3.7 million to the property

taxes of greater Victoria ratepayers this year? If the minister says that, will

he in fact demand a public retraction from School District 61 claiming that

they have lied and misrepresented the case?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and no, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that mean?

LOCATION OF PREMIER'S STAFF

MR. LEA: I wonder if the Premier could tell me whether any of

the following people have ever had their office base in Kelowna:

Messrs. Brown, Roach, Tozer and Arnett. All presently have their office

space in the Premier's office here in Victoria.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this the same question that I remember being asked yesterday?

MR. LEA: No, its not.

HON. MR. BENNETT: From time to time my office space is in

Kelowna, and from time to time it's being used by all members of my

office relating to their duties.

MR. LEA: On a supplementary question, I'm not asking whether

those people have ever been in Kelowna doing work; I'm asking whether

their base has ever been in Kelowna as opposed to Victoria.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this new question is part of the question I took as notice yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary question to a question on notice?

MR. LEA: No, he answered the first question.

I would like to ask the Premier whether any of the same people —

Messrs. Brown, Roach, Tozer and Arnett — have ever had their home base

in Vancouver as opposed to Victoria.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, again that's part of a question I took as notice yesterday.

MR. LAUK: Aren't you talking to your staff? Can't you find out?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I was in Vancouver.

[ Page 2306 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. A further question to a question taken on notice?

MR. LEA: No, it's a separate question. I'd like to ask the

Premier whether he is telling me that he has no idea whether his close

personal staff is based in Victoria or Vancouver or Kelowna.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I'm not telling you that. I'm telling

the member exactly what I told him yesterday — that during the early

time of employment of many of my staff there were certain conditions of

employment, that particularly those who were required to move were

given certain conditions. I took the question as notice.

MR. LEA: Further to the Premieres answer. In those early

days, were any of those people — Brown, Roach, Tozer and Arnett — based

anywhere other than Victoria?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Again, Mr. Speaker, that is the question

that the member for Prince Rupert asked yesterday and has tried to ask

in various ways today, and I will bring the information. It just so

happens that this morning I was in Vancouver, giving a $750,000 cheque

to the Pearson Hospital for a therapeutic swimming pool, and haven't

had a chance to dig out any information of this nature.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, was that a personal cheque or the taxpayers' money?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, its an unusual question, but it having been admitted, we're now going to have to admit the answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it was a cheque on behalf of the people of the province of British Columbia.

GAIN BENEFITS

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I took an answer as notice

from the Minister of Mines. I've studied it and I still don't

understand it, so I'm going to study it again and ask a question today

of the Minister of Human Resources.

Early in August, 1977, the minister was referring to

section 8 of

the GAIN Act, which provides for GAIN benefits to be indexed

automatically as the cost of living rises. He was quoted as saying

then: "We are working towards implementing

section 8, but we're still

working to get rid of inequities." Is the minister not aware that for

every day the cost of living benefits are not added to GAIN benefits,

those very inequities are getting worse? When does he propose to move

on this?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: When we're ready, Mr. Speaker. When all the information is available.

MR. GIBSON: That's not an acceptable answer. What information

is he still awaiting in order to implement this promise made by his

government two years ago? What information is required?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: I don't have the details of that, Mr.

Speaker. But certainly whatever information is required, it's that

information needed to arrive at a reasonable and logical working

arrangement.

MR. GIBSON: That means nothing — absolutely nothing.

SCHOOL TAXES

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. I

would like to know whether in preparation of the new assessment method

for property it was the intention of his government to shift the school

tax burden onto the urban areas where the highest land values exist.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, there was no intention other

than the recommendations from the Assessment Authority to move to

accurate assessment figures, raising some that had been too low,

lowering more which had been too high, as based on the McMath report.

That was the basis for the Assessment Authority's recommendations for

this legislation. This had been subject to discussion in this

Legislature prior to this government, but it was withdrawn by other

governments out of fear, I guess.

MR. STEPHENS: I would like to ask this of the Premier: since

it was not his government's intention to shift the tax burden onto the

urban areas, is he aware that that is precisely what has happened?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the Assessment

Authority under the mandate they had, and looking at the McMath report,

have attempted to do just one thing: provide a fair basis of assessment

on real value for all properties, and move towards equalization of

assessment so that nobody would be overassessed or underassessed, as

they were before. It was to bring a measure of

[ Page 2307 ]

equality that did not exist to all taxpayers in

this province no matter where they reside. It is not this government's

intention to play one property owner against the other or one area of

the province against the other. The Assessment Authority had a single

mandate and that was to bring equality, and equality is what we stand

for.

MR. STEPHENS: I have a further supplementary. I will accept

the Premier's statement that his intentions were honourable and good

and that his government's intentions were the same. But does he in fact

know what has happened, that his intentions have not been met and that

the school tax burden has in fact been shifted to the urban landowners?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, the question is supposition.

What was offered to the various municipalities was, I believe, three

different ways in which, over a period of time, they could work towards

this equalization. In assessing the peculiarities or needs of their own

region or municipality or area they could choose any one of the

formulas to lessen any impact on any category. As such, we have, I

believe, various of these formulas being adopted in various areas. On

completion of the timeframe, I believe all areas will have equality of

assessment. That is what they attempted to do. Some local option was

given and various councils had the option of which formula they would

use in moving towards equality.

ICBC AND ROYAL INSURANCE

MR. COCKE: I have a question for the Minister of Education.

This is another

chapter in the love affair between ICBC and Royal

Insurance. Will the minister explain why the owner of an ICBC-insured

car which is rear-ended and suffering no damage has to make a claim if

the offending driver, and only the offending driver, is covered by

Royal Insurance? Is it because ICBC on agreement will be paying half

the Royal claim?

HON. MR. McGEER: As I have explained to the House before, all

cars in British Columbia are ICBC-insured cars. That's a condition of

getting the decal. If it's a two-car collision or a one-car collision,

ICBC is involved. Therefore it is appropriate that the assessment of

the damage be done by an ICBC adjuster.

MR. COCKE: I was rear-ended the other day in a rather old....

HON. MR. MCGEER: You should watch your behind, Dennis!

MR. COCKE: There was no damage to my car, Mr. Speaker, but I

have ICBC coverage all the way, and the person who hit me had too. Poor

little Honda wrecked the front end. I didn't have to make a claim,

however, but a Royal insured does, because ICBC splits the claim with

Royal Insurance. You call it knock for knock, but it's not. I would

like the minister to get up and explain this knock-for-knock theory.

All insured cars in the province are covered for property damage under

ICBC but this knock for knock is a one-way street, Mr. Speaker. It's a

sweetheart deal.

MR. SPEAKER: That's a very lengthy statement, but we will accept it as a question.

HON. MR. McGEER: If there's a knock-knock, ICBC answers in the insurance field! (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, the knock-for-knock theory is one that applies to a

deal with your own insurance company system, which was a possibility

for British Columbia whereby the private insurers would be able to

participate in compulsory insurance. Now I had a number of discussions

with the private insurers and they were not interested in that scheme.

That's why ICBC is handling all the compulsory insurance in British

Columbia. Again, it's to ICBC's advantage, since if it were your fault

— and I'm sure in this case it wasn't your fault — then ICBC would be

obliged to pay on your behalf as the insured on a liability basis.

On the other hand, if it was entirely the other person's fault, then

of course you are not liable but they are. If their collision is with

the Royal Insurance Company, we have to establish that at ICBC by doing

the adjusting.

MR. COCKE: I took a long time to tell the minister that if

we're both Royal insureds and one isn't damaged, the one doesn't have

to make a claim. There's a lot more work and expense that we're going

to. I'm just asking the minister when we are going to stop subsidizing

Royal Insurance at the expense of all the insured in the province.

LOG DUMP IN COWICHAN ESTUARY

MRS. WALLACE: My question is for the Minister of the

Environment, Mr. Speaker, and it follows on a question I asked him on

May 29 regarding the Cowichan Bay. Can the minister confirm that the

cease-and-desist order, which he indicated was issued, was in fact

issued on

[ Page 2308 ]

May 29 by telegram?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: As far as I know, Mr. Speaker, the instructions were offered by way of letter.

MRS. WALLACE: Can you give me the date?

MR. SPEAKER: The bell ends the question period.

Orders of the day.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, with leave, public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill 26.

MOBILE HOME AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I note with interest that the

Mobile Home Act, which Bill 26 before us today amends, was in fact

debated in second reading exactly one year ago today, June 14, 1977, at

the evening sitting. I think members on both sides of the House will

understand, sir, that with new legislation such as that, with the

experience in the private sector on the part of manufacturers, dealers

in mobile homes and, most importantly, the consumers, a number of minor

problems or deficiencies in the main legislation were found to be

apparent and capable of correcting one year later.

So, Mr. Speaker, this bill deals largely with technical matters

brought to light from our review of the first bill last year, and out

of our experience in the operation of the Mobile Home registry to date.

The mobile home industry, including manufacturers, dealers and lenders,

was consulted by the ministry and some of the proposed amendments deal

specifically with recommendations made by them for improving the

legislation.

Without intruding into committee stage debate, sir, the main provisions of the amending Act deal with the following matters.

First, the existing transitional provisions which deal with the

registration of documents previously registered under other Acts, and

their priorities under those Acts, are to be amended for greater

clarity.

Secondly, a system of interim registrations will be established to

ensure that persons dealing in mobile homes will be able to register

their transactions more quickly and with more confidence in the

effectiveness of those registration. This we expect will ease or

alleviate existing cash-flow problem in the mobile home industry and

will simplify consumer transactions.

Third, the concept of filing a financing statement will be

introduced so that those intending to extend the credit on the security

of a mobile home may, by Telex, reserve time at the registry — its head

office in Victoria — within which to register their security.

The definition of mobile home parks is to be amended in order to

extend the benefits of the provincial homeowner grant to a greater

number of mobile home owners, approximately 14,000 persons. Mobiles on

rented land previously excluded from eligibility for home purchase

assistance are now eligible.

Fifthly, Mr. Speaker, the provisions dealing with the exemption of

mobile homes is to be altered to provide more flexibility in conferring

exempt status on mobile homes which become affixed to land in

circumstances where they are considered to be part of the realty.

Finally, the time period for the registration of foreign security

instruments will be shortened so the priority of registered British

Columbia securities will not be upset by the subsequent registration of

foreign securities. Again, this should be of benefit in the consumer

transactions in mobile homes.

There are other amendments, Mr. Speaker, all of them quite

literally, I believe, of a housekeeping nature or consequential upon

the amendments that I have just outlined. The registration system, sir,

which was established by the Mobile Home Act last year is unique to

British Columbia and the first of its kind in Canada. Those who are

required to use the registration system must be able to do so with

confidence and in the knowledge that their registration will

effectively protect their interests. I'm confident that the proposed

amendments in this bill will achieve the objective and, therefore, with

respect to Bill 26, I move second reading.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I rise as the designated speaker for

the official opposition. First of all I want to say that the official

opposition intends to support this bill. Thank you.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, these lengthy debates are

ridiculous. They achieve nothing. They confuse the gallery. They give

the press gallery — which is not present, of course — no story. The

deputy minister has 18 volumes of notes.

I call the question on second reading.

[ Page 2309 ]

Motion approved.

Bill 26, Mobile Home Amendment Act, 1978, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next

sitting of the House after today.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, second reading, of Bill 14, the Forest Act.

FOREST ACT

MR. KING: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to refer

the House to the fact that six and a half pages of amendments have been

introduced to the Forest Act at the commencement of the sitting today

and, in the absence of any opportunity to study these amendments and

understand whether or not the principle of the bill is altered, it is

impossible to debate the bill in an intelligent way. I think it would

be most irresponsible to proceed with the debate on such a

fundamentally important bill without an opportunity to study these

voluminous amendments that have just been introduced this day.

I ask the government to consider changing the order of business today to allow for reasonable time to study the amendments.

MR. SPEAKER: On the point of order, does the minister have an opinion?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes. The amendments as

tabled today appear quite long, but in fact they are amendments to add

consistency and clarity to some of the wording of the bill. However,

there are a couple of amendments that I will explain to you right now,

and they are quite simple and straightforward, really.

Amendments to sections 14, 15, 33, 38, 39 and 44 simply require that

advance notice be published when existing tenures are rolled into new

forms of tenure. This will provide people with an opportunity to

respond to the ministry concerning rollovers. Those are a number of

amendments with the same single purpose.

Amendments to

section 53 will eliminate a potential inequity among

the holders of timber licences concerning deletions from licences

inside and outside tree farm....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, Mr. Minister. Without going into

debate on the content of the amendments, the House just needs an

assurance that perhaps the amendments do not affect the principle of

the bill.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, the amendments do no affect

the principle of the bill at all. They are slight modifications of the

way and the speed with which certain things can be done.

MR. SPEAKER: With a further opinion, the member for North Vancouver–Capilano.

MR. GIBSON: First of all, with respect to appropriate

parliamentary authorities, I would draw your attention to page 361 of

May, 18th edition, which speaks to change of terms of notice of motion.

These amendments, I understand, do constitute a notice of motion,

having been laid on the table today and first appearing before our eyes

today on our desks. May states: "A modification of a notice of motion

standing upon the notice paper is permitted if the amended motion does

not exceed the scope of the original notice. If a motion is proposed

which differs materially from the terms of the notice, it can only be

made with the consent of the House or by a new notice."

Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that some of the amendments here,

which total amendments to 38 full sections in this bill, are amendments

which importantly respect the principle of this bill.

section 53 is one

of the important sections of the bill in terms of deletions and

reductions. It's absolutely central to the principle of the management

of treefarm licences. And I should say to you that

section 53 is

completely rewritten by these amendments.

section 55, again, is a

critical part of this bill, having to do with reduction of annual

allowable cut — one of the fundamentals of the forest industry in this

province. One of the sections of that is completely rewritten.

Now, Mr. Speaker, beyond that, having had only about five minutes to

study these six pages of proposed amendments, it is very difficult to

say how much more extensively the principle might be affected. But I

say to you, sir, it is wrong to expect this House to debate a bill

which is changed at the last moment by the introduction of amendments

by the minister, and we should have at least a day to look at these

amendments. Go on to some other business today and come back to this

tomorrow, because it's not right to ask members to proceed in that way.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I just want to submit that it is not

good enough to gain the assurance from the minister that the bill has

not been changed in principle. That may well be his opinion, but the

interpretation and the understanding of the amendments are subject to

[ Page 2310 ]

differences of opinion and differences of

interpretation. That is the whole reason why time is required to study

these and formulate our opinion as an opposition as to just how they

precisely alter the bill.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, normally when a bill is introduced the

opposition should be prepared to debate that bill forthwith. Certainly that

was always the case when I sat in the opposition. But I'm sure, should the

opposition be once more unprepared, that they have the option of adjourning

the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I have listened to all of the opinions

and some of the, members have touched on some very important factors. One

of the factors is this: that amendments that are introduced which affect a bill

cannot be determined by the Chair in second reading, as to whether or not they

are in order. After all, those amendments will be considered in committee of

the whole, which is the stage following second reading. I would suggest that

the House, in calling for second reading debate, is running the risk of having

amendments perhaps found out of order. However, that risk is not taken

by the Chair, not even suggested nor even constrained by the Chair. That risk

is taken by the Hon. minister carrying the bill in the House.

Furthermore, we cannot delay the debate on second reading by virtue of the fact that amendments have been introduced.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, if I may draw your attention again to that

citation in May, I want to underline it: "a modification of a notice of

motion standing upon the notice paper." That's what we're talking

about here.

MR. SPEAKER: This is a bill, not a notice of motion.

MR. GIBSON: No, but it's a notice of calling the bill. A modification

is permitted if the amended notice does not exceed the scope of the original

notice. Now I'm arguing that these amendments do exceed the scope of the

original notice or bill and that when we have notice that the bill is to be

debated, that is in essence what the order paper sets forward.

Therefore the government simply can't make such substantial changes

by laying them on the table at the last moment. The government would be

perfectly in order had it withheld these proposed changes until after

debate on second reading. But it did not do that; it chose to lay the

notice on the table now. So I say we must have the appropriate notice

for that, which is two days.

MR. SPEAKER: The further observation is also well received. However,

the determination as to whether or not these amendments are in order, out of

order or beyond the scope of the bill is going to be determined at a future

stage. It's going to be determined in committee of the full House. The debate

at the present moment is going to be on the principle of the bill itself. The

Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has to assume the risk of the bill

proceeding at this time.

MR. GIBSON: I'm not asking you to rule whether or not the amendments

are in order. That's impossible at this stage and they've received insufficient

notice. My point is that were a bill being introduced today de novo it would

require two days' notice, and I suggest that since the bill is so substantially

changed by the amendments that have been laid on the table today, the changed

bill, of which notice has been given, itself requires two days' notice.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think all hon. members are aware

that just because a notice of amendment or an amendment itself is

placed upon the table doesn't necessarily mean that amendment will be

called for, or that it will eventually affect the intent of the bill.

Therefore the Chair can see no reason not to proceed with second

reading at this time.

MR. KING: On a point of order. The Minister of Education — I don't

know whether He's acting, as House Leader or not — did agree to adjournment

of the debate; it seemed to me. My only further statement would be that if

the House would be prepared to grant leave for me to retain my position in

the debate on a subsequent date, I would certainly be prepared to move the adjournment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Education spoke only as a member of

the House, to my knowledge.

HON. MR. MAIR: I thought I was the House Leader. Your

assumption as to what position the Minister of Education took is quite

correct, Mr. Speaker. He was speaking on his own behalf and not on

behalf of the government. I am the House Leader for the day.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you for the clarification.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: I will briefly explain

[ Page 2311 ]

what the amendments mean. As I said earlier....

MR. SPEAKER: We are now on the principle of the bill. The amendments

must be discussed in committee.

HON MR. WATERLAND: The 1978 Forest Act replaces a very old and somewhat

creaky, and, in many aspects, obsolete 1912 Forest Act. The new Forest Act brings

the statutory basis for managing our major resource into the present era. The

new Forest Act has been prepared on certain basic general foundations. One is

that there should be a general policy of sustained yield in forest harvesting

in British Columbia. Secondly, there should be a policy of maintaining within

reason a diversified mix of companies within the industry in terms of size,

structure and ownership pattern. This does not imply that big is necessarily

bad, nor that small is necessarily good, but that there should be ample room

in the industry for all sizes if they are all efficient and if they all manage

the resource well.

The government is and should continue to be the custodian of the

resource, but there should be a continuation of the historic concept of

sharing management responsibilities between government and the private

sector. All forest resource talents should be used to assure the best

management of a public resource and the obvious economic benefits that

flow from the resource. Much of the tenure system that has evolved in

the province is good, and in many cases is uniquely suited to meet the

demands and needs of British Columbia. The need therefore is not for a

wholesale revision, but for simplification, improvement and the removal

of obvious inequities in the existing system. In this regard I would

like to quote from commissioner Dr. Peter H. Pearse's report of the

royal commission on forest resources. Concerning tree-farm licences Dr.

Pearse said:

"From the point of view of resource management,

tree-farm licences have met, if not exceeded, expectations, and they

have been an effective instrument for bringing under management many

otherwise unregulated Crown-granted lands and old temporary tenures, as

well as extensive tracts of Crown forest.

"The proprietary interest that licencees have developed

in these lands, incentives the system has provided, and the priority given them

by the Forest Service have produced the highest standard of forest management

in this province, a standard that in many cases is high by international comparisons

as well. With few exceptions both the Forest Service and the licensees are proud

of the rapid improvement of resource management under these tenures."

Concerning timber sale harvesting licences, Dr. Pearse said:

"As current timber sale harvesting licences expire,

they should be replaced with a modified tenure in the form of forest

licences. These licences should not be designed to provide a particular

plant with all its expected timber needs, but should be based instead

on manageable units of Crown forest land which are capable of yielding

enough timber to supply a significant portion of a typical mill's

requirements."

Concerning pulpwood harvesting agreements, Dr. Pearse said:

"Pulpwood agreements should be the preferred form of

right for new manufacturing ventures requiring raw material that can be

provided in the form of residues from around wood milling enterprises."

Mr. Speaker, neither the royal commissioner nor this government

proposes drastic revisions of the existing system. Some self-interest

groups have clamoured for wholesale redistribution of timber rights.

Again, neither this government nor the royal commission recommended

this, nor is there any valid reason to do so. The objective is to

achieve good management through tenure security and not to impede good

management through chaotic disruption of employment, communities or

investment security, or by any further delay in concluding a process

that has been underway for six years.

Some people are asking for more time to study this legislation. Let

me remind this Legislature that we are in the sixth year of this

process now. Major aspects of the process began under the former NDP

administration. There has been enough time and enough opportunities for

all interests to make their views known. The process has been

exhaustive, objective and thorough. All interests will never be

satisfied, but I believe the best possible balance has been struck. The

concepts of environmental protection, multiple use and consideration of

balanced and rational public concerns are recognized throughout the

Forest Act as valid operational procedures within the basic priority of

better forest management.

I would like to quote the remarks of the Hon. William R. Ross,

Minister of Lands, made in this Legislature in 1912, when debate began

on the second reading of the 1912 Forest Act.

"Sir, a certain solemnity of its own surrounds the introduction of this forest

[ Page 2312 ]

bill. An epic is condemned, a new epic inaugurated. A turning

point in the development of this great, young province has been reached. We

raise ourselves today above transitory interests of this week, this year. We

glance down the vista of the years to come, and, turning from that vision of

the future, we call the world to witness that we legislate today not only for

ourselves and the needs of this day and this generation, but also and no less

for our children's children and for all prosperity, that we may hand down

to them their vast heritage of forest wealth, unexhausted and unimpaired."

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker and hon. members, the principle of the

1978 Forest Act is the attainment of better forest management through

good licensing systems, fairness and incentives.

I have received many letters regarding this Act. Nearly all make the

observation that the Act is clearly written in simple and

understandable language. That being the case, there is no need for me

to delay debate, because the Act speaks for itself. Obviously a few

bugs are going to appear in this Act as it is used over the next

several years. Of course, the Act can be amended to rectify these if

necessary.

Let us debate the substance of the 1978 Forest Act, and not fall to political posturing.

Mr. Speaker, I move that Bill 14 be now read a second time.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset that I am

extremely disappointed and perplexed that the minister would handle

this very important bill in the particular way that it has been handled

today.

On the eve of the sitting today, we had very substantial amendments

released to the House, which I do not intend to discuss. Nevertheless,

we are conducting a debate in second reading on principle on a bill we

know has been substantially changed by the amendments introduced today.

To some extent at least, these amendments make today's debate

superfluous and redundant. I think that is

an act of gross

irresponsibility an behalf of the Minister of Forests. To treat a bill

of such major and fundamental significance to the future of this

province in this rather cavalier way is absolutely unforgivable.

Then we have a five-minute dissertation by the minister on a bill

that is going to affect forest land use in this province for the next

25 years at least and for an unspecified and unlimited period of time

in the future, from the point of view of many, because of the perpetual

nature of many of the allocations of timber that are made in this bill.

It's just an absolutely unbelievable approach to a statute as

fundamentally important as this one. Quite frankly, it's the most

irresponsible performance I have ever witnessed in this Legislature on

something as basic and important as this particular statute.

We're not just talking about the forest industry per se. We're not

just talking about the IWA, who are the workers in the forest industry.

We are talking about every individual citizen of this province, whose

destiny and future and security and lifestyle is affected by the

contents of this statute. It's a cliché to say that in excess of 50 per

cent of the total revenue of this province is extracted from the forest

industry, but it's true. To have this kind of approach to the

introduction to the public understanding and to some realistic,

intelligent dialogue on this particular bill is just unbelievable and

just unacceptable. I can't believe that this has been the direction and

the approach taken by the minister.

Mr. Speaker, I would have thought that, if the minister has

confidence in the statute, if he really has any confidence that this

statute — which, admittedly, is overdue — really holds some solid

material in terms of changing the direction in a positive way for the

management of our timber resource, he would have wanted great public

understanding; I would have thought that he would have been proud

enough to stand up and go into some detail about precisely what he

hoped to achieve by this statute, rather than dealing in the very

cursory way in which he has dealt with it.

Mr. Speaker, I have no alternative but to treat the bill in the form

that the statute has been resting on the order paper of this

Legislature for the last two or three weeks, and that means ignoring

altogether any change that may be implied in the amendments that have

been presented. And I want to tell you that on the basis of my

investigation, my study of the statute, and certainly wide consultation

with professional people in the field, foresters, enterprises large and

small, the working people who are involved in the forest industry, and

a variety of other organizations such as the Sierra Club and local

citizens' groups, I feel safe in saying that the Act, in fact, is a

monument to a weak and inept minister which will haunt this particular

government for the next 25 years.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, may I just inter-

[ Page 2313 ]

rupt you, please. The authorities provide that in

second reading on a bill, the debate on this stage of the bill should

be confined to the bill itself and should not be extended to a

criticism of administration — opportunity for that is provided during

estimates. Perhaps the hon. member would like to confine his remarks to

the bill itself, rather than referring to the administration.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not talking about the

administration of the bill; I'm talking about the particular way in

which this bill has been handled and introduced, and I think that's a

valid matter for discussion. However, I am moving on to my assessment

of the bill.

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's a first-class bill.

MR. KING: Whether or not it's a first-class bill, Mr.

Speaker, the fact of the matter is that the government themselves

apparently had very little confidence in the statute, when it's been

handled in the particular way that it has.

The minister has brought the mining mentality to the management of

the forest resources in this province, in my view. Instead of wise

husbandry, through a sustained-yield concept and even-flow objective,

the Act stimulates increased cutting of timber without adequate regard

for current inventory and regeneration needs. In my view, in short, the

timber resource is treated more like a non-renewable ore than a

replaceable crop which must be harvested and which must be replaced for

future generations.

I'm seriously concerned that the sustained yield concept is

abandoned in this particular statute. Absent from the Act is the

requirement for large, integrated firms to compete for timber supply in

this province. Rather, through the increased tenure which is virtually

perpetual monopoly, control of Crown resources by the eight major

forest companies is further entrenched and solidified. While it's true

to say that large capital investment requires some security of tenure,

such a need in my view does not imply the right to monopolization of

the resource. I noted in the minister's opening remarks that he quoted

the Pearse report and dealt with the positive advantages of the

tree-farm licences over the years; but he neglected to talk about the

shortcomings, which were also discussed in the Pearse royal commission

report. And I think its significant that Dr. Peter Pearse advocated

that none of the major companies in this province — or, indeed, no

quota holder — should have secure tenure on 100 per cent of his milling

needs. He, in fact, advocated that they should not hold in quota or by

licence more than 80 per cent of their particular timber needs on an

annual-cut basis. Pearse advocated, as a means of stimulating

efficiency in the forest industry and as means of introducing some

competitiveness for the resource, that all companies should have to

compete in an open bidding system for at least 20 per cent of their

needs. There is nowhere in the bill, Mr. Speaker, that such a concept

is embodied or enshrined.

(Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

I'd like to go back a little bit with respect to the history of

forest management in this province and just review some of the findings

and some of the attitudes that were held when the Sloan commission sat

in 1955 to review the health of the forest industry in his province.

Mr. Speaker, a generation and a half ago perpetual timber supply was

given to selected companies on the theory security of supply would

cause them to invest in stable, secure, job-creating manufacture and

ensure continued ability to sell products in world markets. At that

particular time, opponents of the plan giving evidence to Chief Justice

Sloan in 1955 said the theory would not work. Significantly, H.R.

MacMillan was an articulate opponent at that particular time. I want to

refer to some of the quotes of H.R. MacMillan as contained in the Sloan

royal commission report: "A few companies would acquire control of the

resource and form a monopoly. It will be managed by professional

bureaucrats, fixers with a penthouse viewpoint who, never having had

rain in their lunch bucket, would abuse the forest." H.R. MacMillan

said that this monopoly would become a "stagnating, depressing blanket

on the economy, and the participants, unable to compete in the world

market, would resort to sharing the residual segment of it obtained

from buyers who could not fill requirements elsewhere." That is, B.C.

would become a producer of last resort." Public interest, he suggested,

"would be victimized "because vigorous, innovative citizen business

needed to provide the efficiency of competition would be denied logs

and thereby prevented from penetration of the market."

Politicians in this generation should re-study the royal commission

report and examine the situation existing on the coast today. Bearing

in mind the concerns and the predictions raised by H.R. MacMillan in

1955, one should look at the concentration of power

[ Page 2314 ]

in the forest industry on the coast, particularly today.

There are eight multinational companies, Mr. Speaker, all but one

foreign controlled or dominated, who control all tree-farm licences,

almost all private forest lands, all temporary tenures and half the

public sustained yield units. With that, they control 80 per cent of

the log supply and a surplus to their own needs in terms of their

milling and manufacturing plants one and a half times greater than all

the supply allowed the domestic citizen entrepreneur. That's the kind

of concentration and the kind of monopoly that has developed basically

as a result of the direction, the tree-farm licences, the quota that

was allowed in the past under the old Social Credit government. That is

precisely what both Sloan and Dr. Peter Pearse latterly urged the

government to move away from. They urged the government to move away by

giving the industry a good old shot of old-fashioned, good, competitive

free enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, I find it just absolutely shocking that this

government, who represented themselves as free enterprisers in the last

election, should discard the concept and not only allow the continued

monopolization of the forest, but entrench it by statute so that the

forests of British Columbia will be tied up in the tight monopoly grasp

of eight major companies without the opportunity for the small

entrepreneur to enter the market or to enter the industry for the next

25 to 35 years at least. In terms of how the new conceptual, evergreen

clause will be handled, Mr. Speaker, it could be virtual perpetuity in

terms of the licence replacement for all the different kind of quota

allocations under the new statute. I don't think the minister

understands it himself. I honestly do not believe that the minister,

who has a background in the mining industry, understands the difference

in the management concepts of a renewable crop, such as our forest

industry, as opposed to the extraction of raw ore from the ground which

cannot be replaced. Perhaps that's the problem. Perhaps he's been taken

in by the bureaucrats and by the self-interest groups in the forest

industry who seek to protect their own security at the expense of the

public interest.

I wonder about some of the backbenchers who have been involved in

the forest industry on a small basis. I wonder about the member for

Skeena (Mr. Shelford), who is a hard-working individual, who is an

entrepreneur in the real sense of being willing and able to get out and

do some good hard work, and by the sweat of his brow carve out a little

niche for himself in this province. There's no opportunity whatsoever

under this bill. The resource is all tied up; the allocation is all

made. It's a shocking situation.

Very unfortunately, Bob Williams is not here when we need him. I

certainly wish he was when I look at this statute and weep. I can tell

you, Mr. Speaker, that there are many hundreds of small operators in

this province who wish Bob William was here also. Many of them are

saying it publicly, at long last.

MR. KAHL: Name one.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, it is instructive to examine the

MacMillan Bloedel situation. Within a decade of Mr. MacMillan's

retirement, and despite his well-stated warning to his own company in

1955, its efficiency skidded downward faster and hit the bottom sooner

than other members of the coastal monopoly. That is MacMillan Bloedel.

Diagnosis of MacMillan Bloedel's situation documents the reason why

Bill 14 should be amended by deleting sections 27 (10), 49 (2) and 147

and certainly amending and restating

section 33 (2) to require that a

timber supply available to any company should not exceed the needs of

the log-using capacity of the manufacturing plant owned by that company.

This means the redistribution of timber right now. It doesn't mean

wiping out the security and the life of existing corporations and

plants. It simply means freeing up some of the timber for competition

in an open way so that there is an opportunity for the market to

establish the real value of logs, so that there is a situation where

there is free and true competition in the forest industry in the

province of British Columbia at long last. It means no more perpetual

licences. It means reasonable tenure to a limited amount of the needs

of each company, of each licence holder. I think the government has

been remiss. I think they have been really remiss and they should be

ashamed. In terms of protecting the public interest, their duty is to

protect the public interest by following their recommended courses of

the Pearse report. They have just completely neglected to do so, and

abandoned the meat and substance of his recommendations altogether.

What happens in the kind of monopoly situation that we have seen

with the coast industry, particularly over the past 25 years? It's not

only that large companies form a monopoly, squeeze out competition,

destroy any ability to establish the true value of the log through an

open bidding system. It's not only that, Mr. Speaker. There's a

tendency to increase

[ Page

2315 ]

foreign control of our resource. Many of these companies are foreign-dominated

corporations. Dr. Peter Pearse stated his concern over that drift and that tendency

toward monopoly foreign domination of our basic forest resource.

MacMillan Bloedel in the 15 years since 1962 has made very major

capital investments in Alabama, in Europe, in Brazil and in the Far

East. With the exception of refining its pulp and paper operations in

British Columbia, nothing has been done to upgrade its B.C. log

manufacturing operations. It has taken its earnings, deferred income

tax and depreciation allowances to create new ventures outside of

British Columbia, leaving behind a technologically obsolete, mismanaged

and inefficient lumber, plywood, shingle and other log-using

operations. This is the history of MacMillan Bloedel. It is public

knowledge. I am not stating something that is not public knowledge,

both in the industry and hopefully in political circles.

This demonstrates that perpetual tenure and oversupply of resource

does not induce efficiency. It does not induce further capital

investments in the province of British Columbia. Rather, it allows for

sloppy inefficiency and the creaming off and the investment of profits

that should be directed into British Columbia's economy to other more

lucrative and low labour cost areas of the world. That is why we have

the mentality of INCO, prepared to close down its operation in Sudbury,

Ontario, while investing heavily in Venezuela. It's fine to lay off

4,000 Canadian workers but socially unacceptable in Venezuela. What

kind of a government is it that allows industry to play those kinds of

games? What kind of response and responsibility is that to the public

interest which the minister is charged with protecting?

These are the facts of the case. The history of MacMillan Bloedel in

this province is very instructive. I don't think there is any

particular reason to pick on MacMillan Bloedel. I'm not suggesting they

are any worse a corporate citizen than many others in the industry.

What I am attempting to demonstrate is that large is not necessarily

more efficient than small. In fact it's very doubtful if it's ever as

efficient in the forest industry. The small specialized mills to be

efficient because they are not granted monopoly tenure on timber

supply. They have to be innovative and they have to scratch for a more

efficient plant. That's the direction the minister should have sought

to create a reasonable balance so that the public interest was properly

served.

It's interesting to have a look at the profile of MacMillan Bloedel's

operation in the province of British Columbia. While a published report of the

company apologized for millions and millions lost in shipping, for instance,

in ventures in Europe and elsewhere, these are pin pricks compared to deterioration

of the B.C. log-using in building materials operations.

In the company's own data from 1973-76, an era which had one of the

strongest market demands in a decade, the B.C. operation in logging,

lumber, plywood — everything except pulp and paper — dropped from net

earnings before tax of $85.5 million to just over $4 million three

years ago. The reasons are inflation in domestic costs of labour, fuel

supplies and services, combined with 15 years of technological neglect

directly attributable, I suggest, to security provided by tree-farm

licences which made the company incapable of selling at a profit in

export markets.

In the same period, and almost without exception, those without

assured supplies of timber, and therefore forced to pay market price

for logs and forced to invest in modern technology, earned a profit and

made positive contribution to the social and economic benefits of

British Columbians.

The comparison of financial performances between MacMillan Bloedel

before tax operating profit and loss with independent specialist

companies in terms of log cunits is an interesting comparison.

MacMillan Bloedel earned $6.95 on lumber, while the independents earned

$7.10. The same disparity existed in the plywood and shingle sectors as

well.

When we look at a profile of their financial performance over the

years since 1962, and when we look at the figures on their profit

sheets, it reveals a startling story of inefficiency. It reveals that

MacMillan Bloedel is using as well as misusing timber given by

government at no cost and at low stumpage. They have been using this to

survive virtual bankruptcy which they would have suffered had the

company been mismanaged in the way it has without such a long-term

virtual monopoly supply of timber.

Logging profits from the timber that government has given away are

being dissipated by MacMillan and millions of dollars of annual loss

because of a sick and obsolete manufacturing operation in MacMillan

Bloedel. The minister knows that. All one has to do is peruse their own

financial records.

The thousands and thousands of MacMillan Bloedel employees in

Vancouver, Port Alberni, Chemainus and elsewhere in B.C. have no job

security. The red ink will destroy their jobs.

[ Page 2316 ]

Foreign workers in lands where MacMillan Bloedel tuck the money

generated from B.C.'s economy and tree-farm system are the ones who

will have the job security. It's similar to the INCO catastrophe in

eastern Canada. It's the same kind of situation, without control or

without intervention in this statute from the minister.

MacMillan Bloedel controls 2.8 million acres of B.C. forests. That's

80 per cent public land allocated by government under enormously

favourable circumstances, and the balance is former E&N land owned

and operated as treegrowing land under special land tax concessions. In

some reasonable perspective the company controls about 33 per cent of

coastal log production. As it flounders along, everything it does

damages someone else in B.C.'s forest industry economy.

It's interesting to note some of the statements that the chief

executive officer of MacMillan Bloedel made when he was in New York to

borrow money on Wall Street. I don't want to be unfair to Mr. Knudsen

by taking his comments out of context, so I am quite prepared to file a

copy of his speech with the House. He said: "We harvest and process

three million cunits annually in British Columbia." Now MacMillan

Bloedel annual allowable-cut capacity as reported by the royal

commission shows this information, Mr. Speaker: tree-farm licences —

268 million cunits; tree-farm and special licences and other private

land outside the TFLs — about 90 million cunits; public sustained-yield

units — nine million cunits; for a total of 367 million cunits.

"In the long term, based upon 2.8 million producing

acres growing 1.5 cunits per acre per year, MacMillan Bloedel has

upwards of 420 million cunits annual allowable cut."

This is from their own records; this information is available to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

"Lot usage in their wood product plants in 1976 show

lumber — 170 million cubic feet; plywood — 25; shingles — 5; a total of

200 million cubic feet; the indicated surplus before usage in pulp and

paper — 167 million cubic feet. Pulp and paper is, or should be, a user

of chips and logs of character and type not suited to sawmill and

plywood operations. There is enormous surplus of chips and pulp-logs

available in the coastal forest industry, which MacMillan Bloedel could

purchase at less than cost of their own production."

So it's revealed, Mr. Speaker, that MacMillan Bloedel is, first,

provided a supply allocation from government which is far in excess of

their need, far in excess of their plant capacity. Secondly, perusal of

their own records reveals that they're harvesting only 81 per cent of

that which is allocated, leaving uncut 67 million cunits desperately

needed by log-short independent mills without an allocation — in fact,

denied an allocation because of this government.

And the minister has the gall, Mr. Speaker, to suggest that in this

statute there is an allocation for the small entrepreneur, that there

is a role for competition in the forest industry. Nonsense, because

there is an overallocation to a majority of the large companies that

can't utilize it, first of all, and because this government lacks the

fortitude, apparently, to reallocate that timber so that it is

available for competition on the market. That's what the people of the

province expected, you know. And I don't know why it would take so much

courage to go that route. We're not recommending anything radical that

would undermine or jeopardize the employment security associated with

MacMillan Bloedel, Can-Cel, Grown Zellerbach or any of the rest of

them; we're just suggesting that we have no obligation to give them

this kind of monopoly, this kind of perpetual tenure on our resources.

If they're true free-enterprisers, why not require them to get into the

market? Why not pull up their socks a little bit in terms of efficiency

and compete with some of the smaller operators who have displayed far

more innovation, far more courage than any of the large, integrated

firms in this province over the past 20 years?

Under the new statute there will be no more scope for operations

like Herb Doman's. Herb Doman made it in the system on material that

was thrown away by everyone else, and I hold no particular brief for

Herb Doman, except to say he was an enterprising individual. He was

enterprising and he was competent and efficient, and he made it on

material that would have been wasted, if not burned, by many of the

major companies in this province. Under the new statute there will be

no scope and opportunity for anyone such as Herb Doman to make it

again. It's all tied up by the people who refer to themselves as free

enterprisers. What a charade! What complete nonsense.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reiterate that MacMillan Bloedel is not alone

in this kind of record of performance. All we've got to do is force

them to be a bit more lean, force them to compete so that they can't

sit back, secure in the knowledge that they've got an overabundance of

timber and don't have to be too efficient, while controlling the log

market. There are others besides MacMillan Bloe-

[ Page 2317 ]

del; criticism applies to some extent and with

equal justification to all the integrated companies in the province of

British Columbia. Whether unwittingly or not, government is condoning

both a monopoly of the public resource in the control of a few

multinational companies as well as ineffective, if not improper, use of

resource.

I'm not going to go on quoting Mr. Knudsen in some of %his comments.

In a way, perhaps it's a bit unfair to do so; but it is quite

instructive to read the speech and the presentation that Calvert

Knudsen made to the money market people on Wall Street, when MacMillan

Bloedel was seeking a $50 million loan just a short time ago.

In any analysis of the MacMillan Bloedel record, though, their data

shows that the company is extracting the lowest value from public

resources of any B.C. company. Some of the reasons for MacMillan

Bloedel's difficulty are: man-day productivity in sawmills at about

1,222 board feet compared with upward to 4,500 in nonintegrated,

specialist mills — the reason is not sloppy labour, but obsolete,

outdated factories; in plywood, 1,063-3/8 per man-day for MacMillan

Bloedel, which is about one-quarter of the level of comparable mills in

the U.S. Pacific Northwest. Moreover, MacMillan Bloedel's cost of the

head office of forestry in building material group is at $18.6 million,

has risen 69 per cent in the three years 1973 to 1976, during which

operating profits for their enterprise in B.C. — lumber, plywood,

shingles and logging after deducting a $22.5 million loss on logs

transferred to pulp and paper group — were down 97 per cent. This

demonstrates the enormous advantage MacMillan Bloedel has in quality

resource supply, and favourable treatment by government is dissipated

by deplorably outdated technology and gross operating inefficiencies.

It's a tale of woe. And the pith and substance of this particular

bill is really the fact that the minister apparently lacked the will or

the understanding to bite the bullet and to deal with the real core

issue in terms of the management of B.C.'s resource; and that means a

reallocation, a freeing of the resource for real competition on the

market. How do we know what the real value of a log is in British

Columbia? The stumpage in large measure is based on the Vancouver log

market performance, which I understand is very artificial. The stumpage

is an inaccurate assessment to make at the best of times. Why is the

minister afraid to allow competition on the open market to establish

the true price and the true value of the resource that belongs to our

citizens in this province? Everyone on that side pays lip service to

free enterprise and competition. Why is it that you run away from that

concept when it comes to large, foreign corporations and say that, if

they are to be productive and maintain employment stability in this

province, they need a monopoly and they don't have to compete? What

kind of double standard is that, Mr. Speaker?

The minister has no answer to that. And I really don't expect any, I

guess, because there's simply no question that that is the result of

the statute, and no matter how he fools around with small peripheral

and technical amendments, the die is cast in terms of the destiny of

the forest industry in this province for years and years to come, for

generations to come. And it's just a bitter shame.

The minister is correct when he says that a tremendous amount of

work has been done. It was started under the New Democratic Party

government with the appointment of Dr. Pearse, and I certainly commend

the Pearse royal commission report to every citizen of the province of

British Columbia. It's an excellent assessment of the health of the

forest industry in this province. It zeroes in in an open and honest

way on many of the problems of the industry, and it's just a shame that

this kind of debate and this kind of statutory initiative that is

taking place today should be undertaken without much more public

dialogue than we have had so far.

I suspect that a great many individual citizens are reluctant to

talk about forestry because of all of the technical jargon involved —

the jargon that relates to the regeneration process, genetic research,

methods of replanting, spacing and fertilization, and the whole system

of harvesting. The foresters have their own discipline and they use the

jargon of the trade, which is often intimidating to the average, lay

citizen. But I want to say to the people of British Columbia that not

only in forestry, but in other areas and disciplines as well, unless we

are prepared to take on these issues and try to understand them as

citizens and not be intimidated by the professional jargon, we are

committing our future and the destiny of this province to bureaucrats

who do not understand the public interest.

I suggest that it is a pretty gloomy picture down the road if that

is the extent of the responsibility which all of us as citizens are

prepared to take in terms of understanding the need for more sound

management, the need for breaking up monopoly control and perpetual

control of our resources in British Columbia

[ Page 2318 ]

and Canada.

If we're going to forge some new directions and make some changes,

then we had better start getting angry. We had better start getting

angry that weak ministers who don't understand the industry and don't

understand the needs and the concepts allow themselves to be ruled by

bureaucrats, and allow the public interest to be offended. It's no

longer good enough to allow the public policy of this nation and this

province to be guided on that particular basis.

I'm going to leave MacMillan-Bloedel alone for a while. I want to

reiterate I haven't intended to be unfair to MacMillan-Bloedel. I have

nothing against them; I would just like to see them compete in a

healthy way. As is usual in this province, it falls to live democratic

socialists to defend true competitive free enterprise. What many of the

people on that side of the House don't seem to understand is that there

is a difference between true competitive free enterprise and monopoly

enterprise.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are discussing the principle of this bill.

MR. KING: We certainly are, and I just regret so much that

that principle is not contained in this statute. That is one of the key

points to be made in discussing this particular bill. I get a kick out

of it, you know. Everybody pays lip service to free enterprise. It's

like motherhood. "Let the other guy compete in the system and give me

my little monopoly" — that's the name of the game. We have a government

here which is prepared to deliver that kind of control and that kind of

monopoly to the major players in the industry. That does not serve the

public interest, Mr. Speaker.

I want to tell you that I received a tremendous number of

submissions with respect to this particular legislation. I have

received a submission from the West Coast Environmental Law Association

expressing their concern about this bill on a whole variety of grounds.

I'm not going to deal in a broad way with this bill because my

colleagues will be dealing with more specific areas of concern as we go

along in this debate.

Perhaps I should identify for the House before I do proceed some of

the general criticisms we have of the bill and extend them beyond the

area that I have been discussing, which is basically the lack of

competition and the monopoly control of the resource. Perhaps I should

just identify what some of my colleagues will be zeroing in on as this

debate proceeds in very lengthy fashion, which I anticipate it shall.

We're concerned about how this statute is essentially converting

public forests into private property. Let us just say that under the

provisions of this particular statute, if the public requires back land

that is in the timber sector for park use, wilderness use or anything

else, they are obliged to purchase back what is already Crown land from

the leaseholder. I ask you whose interest that serves. I ask you if you

can find that concept applicable to any other leaseholder in the

province of British Columbia. I don't think you would get it from your

landlord. After all, the Crown is the landlord with respect to our

resources, yet we're obliged to purchase back Crown land that we give

out in leasehold for tile exploitation of timber. It's a shocking

concept and one that is not acceptable to our caucus.

We intend to show that this statute abandons the concept of

sustained yield. Sustained yield is something that is accepted on an

even-flow basis so that proper rotation and replantation of our forest

resource on a rotation basis maintains an even-flow annual cut

potential for future generations. That concept is abandoned in this

bill, perhaps because the minister is from a mining area and believes

in mining the forest rather than managing it. I don't know.

That's the substance, in effect, of the bill. We intend to show —

and I have been showing, I think — that public bidding for timber is

not allowed and is not possible under this statute. We intend to show

that the licensing of sawmills is going to nail down monopoly powers

for the majors even tighter.

We intend to show that the new Act is limiting any new provincial park proposals.

We intend to show how it abandons the idea of integrated resource

management, freezes out the fish and wildlife branch, freezes out the

Agriculture ministry, freezes out Parks, and we believe in the multiple

use concept and approach to land management. Forestry seems to be the

single purpose use in this particular statute, and that's dangerous.

We intend to show — and I believe I have to some extent — how

newcomers will be frozen out of the industry, and certainly we intend

to show that the Forest Service is not going to be as effective in

terms of public management of the forest with the kind of tenure and

control the majors will hold under this new statute.

So my criticism is not confined to one area and, as I indicated, Mr. Speaker, my collea-

[ Page 2319 ]

gues will be referring to many of these other areas in more precise fashion later on.

I'll go back to some of the submissions I have received — and I

think the government has received most of them also — from various

groups who are expressing interest and concern in the new statute. The

West Coast Environmental Law Association express concern and I believe

they ask for a delay in the bill so that there can be better public

dialogue and public discussion of it, and they certainly recommend a

whole variety of amendments to the statute.

The Smithers Forestry Advisory Committee have made a submission,

they have come together as a private group of citizens and have

attempted to analyze the bill and understand it, and to accept their

responsibility for the management of our resources. They express

concern that there are provisions in this statute that could easily

permit an accelerated over-cutting of the province's timber resource by

introducing demand factors and calculation of timber supply. They

express concern about using the promise of future increased growth from

intensive silviculture to up the annual cut instead of stabilizing a

declining harvest at present levels. They express concern that the

absence of public accountability by industry for their performance on

Crown lands is increased, and that the only provision for public

hearing in the Act is for new tree-farm licences and pulpwood

agreements, a somewhat cynical move because there are unlikely to be

any such new licences because the timber is all already committed.

I think they are completely valid concerns, Mr. Speaker, that should

be respected by the minister and by the government, and there should be

more time allowed and the public should be encouraged to participate in

the debate.

Another point I should make before I go on, Mr. Speaker. It's a real

shame, you know, and a bit of an insult chat this government, who has

paid lip service to public dialogue on this particular bill, is ramming

the legislation through today — just two or three weeks after its

introduction — and the minister 'himself last fall stated that three

months would be given for discussion of this bill between the time it

was introduced in the House and the time it would be called for second

reading.

To compound the problem still further, I understand that citizens in

this city and in this province who have taken an interest and have

written to the government to obtain a copy of the statute have been

told that there are no more copies available. Mr. Speaker, that is

grossly irresponsible. Why the minister didn't instruct the Queen's

Printer to go to another printing of this particular statute is beyond

me. Perhaps his motivation was to keep it as quiet as possible. I don't

know, but I think it is just grossly irresponsible that people who are

interested in obtaining this statute, studying it, discussing it with

their neighbours and small operators in their area are prevented from

doing so because there are no more copies available from the Queen's

Printer. It's absolutely shocking.

I've had a representation from the Sierra Club. They list eight

points that they are concerned about. They conclude with this

paragraph, Mr. Speaker: "The above eight points no doubt do not cover

all major deficiencies. However, it is our belief that the existing

Bill 14 clearly does not represent the needed legislative reform in

British Columbia forest management." They would like more time to study

the provisions and create some dialogue and some instructions to the

government, and if the government is responsive to the people, why

should that not be accepted? Why should that not be welcomed?

I have, Mr. Speaker, a submission from the Union of B.C. Indian

Chiefs. They have made a submission and issued a press release wherein

they discuss the Forest Act, the Range Act, and the Ministry of Forests

Act. They state: "I am concerned that the Forest Act does not contain

adequate provisions to increase access to timber supplies by

small-scale logging operations. This makes it extremely difficult for

our Indian bands to start up the small, labour-intensive operations

needed to improve the poor living conditions on many of our reserves."

What is wrong with that objective by the native Indians? The government

pays lip service to people being productive in this society and

contributing to the economy of British Columbia rather than being a

drain on society through the payment of social assistance costs and so

on. The Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Hr. Vander Zalm) says: "Give

them a shovel." All the Indian bands in British Columbia are saying is:

"Give us an axe and a saw and we'll be productive. Give us a piece of

the action." But there's no opportunity under this statute. That timber

is all reserved for the major foreign corporations that have a virtual

monopoly in this province. The government speaks out of both sides of

its mouth, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: Why not? It has two faces.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, the B.C. Independent Logging Association has

something to say about

[ Page 2320 ]

the bill. I think I should read the preface and just a bit of the presentation that this association has made:

"The British Columbia Independent Logging Association

represents nearly 1,000 independent logging contractors and log haulers

from all parts of British Columbia, excepting Vancouver Island. These

firms range from owner-operator truckers, skidder operators,

fellerbuncher operators, et cetera, to large, established stump-to-dump

loggers.

"During the exhaustive review of the forest industry

which has taken place during the recent past, this association has made

numerous representations to the several bodies which have undertaken

this review including the task force on Crown timber disposal, the

Royal Commission on Forest Resources and the forest policy advisory

committee. In many instances, these representations to these agencies

have been well received and noted.

"The proposed new Forest Act, Bill 14, tabled in the

Legislature on May 12, 1978, has failed to take these same

representations into account in a way which substantially affects the

forest industry. For this reason, we feel now that for the future

integrity of this industry it is imperative that we present the

attached proposals for amendment to the Forest Act, and it is further

imperative that the government include these proposals in its final

legislation. To expedite this procedure, we are being deliberately

concise and direct."

Indeed, Mr. Speaker, they are concise and direct. Contained in their

dissertation before they list their recommendations for amendment is

this paragraph:

"In this proposed legislation, the public is ignored.

Crown revenue is gravely diluted and the independent operator is

ultimately disenfranchised. It is the vehicle for the control of all

public timber to be inexorably concentrated in the hands of the largely

international corporations which today hold the bulk of existing timber

rights in the province. These timber rights are held without

com-petition. The future rights to all Crown timber will be held

without competition in perpetuity, which will make existing licenses

look momentary. The historical development of tenure in British

Columbia guarantees this as inevitable."

And they conclude with this statement:

"This sinister concentration of corporate power and control

is of serious concern to us, not just as members of the forest industry community,

but as British Columbians and Canadians."

AN HON. MEMBER: Sinister?

MR. KING: Sinister, Mr. Speaker. That's the categorization by

significant industries in the forest industry community of British

Columbia.

Perhaps it's significant that the only positive thing that anyone

has had to say for this new statute is from the good old Council of

Forest Industries. And who are they? In substance, they are the very

major integrated firms that so many of the people have categorized as

being the people who enjoy the monopoly control under this particular

statute. COFI thinks the Act is not bad. They've come out with a fairly

positive statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. KING: Their quota is secure. Their monopoly is secured under this particular Act.

MR. BARRETT: They can afford to believe in free enterprise.

MR. KING: They like free enterprise too, so long as it's not

too free. It's okay for the other guys to compete out there on the

market, but the big ones don't deign to do that kind of mundane thing.

After all, they invested millions and millions of dollar in plants 25

years ago. They want capitalization of that investment to take place so

they have to protect their interest.

I feel for COFI but I think I don't really have to extend too many

sympathies or hands of friendship to them, because they seem to be

doing quite well under the existing structure, Mr. Speaker — very well

indeed. I don't know whether the minister knows it or not, but I'm sure

COFI must be laughing all the way to the bank in terms of this statute.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, there are a few other things I want to say. I'm not

going to go on too much longer. There are a couple of things in the

Pearse report that I didn't refer to, if I can find them here, and

point out how they've been completely overlooked and neglected by the

new statute that the minister has introduced. I think one of the most

significant things that Dr. Pearse pointed out in

chapter 4 of his

report was that on the coast MacMillan Bloedel controls 32 per cent of

the

[ Page 2321 ]

cut; BCFP, 11.5 per cent; Rayonier, 10.4 per cent. Thus these three companies have over half the coastal timber supply.

He went on to outline Crown Zellerbach, Weldwood, Tahsis, Eurocan

and so on, and it's quite an indictment of this concentration of

monopoly power over our forest resource. It's unhealthy for the

industry, " concluded Dr. Pearse. I just want to read some of his other

comments and point out that it's so unfortunate that an excellent

report like this which identifies many of the problems is embraced by

the government. They say it's a great report, they pay lip service to

the support of it, but when it comes to the fortitude and the courage

to deliver on the meat of the Pearse report, they back off. They

carried with them into this new statute the veneer of delivering on the

Pearse report, but in fact and substance they just came up with the

catch phrases and left the substance out.

Dr. Pearse talked about foreign ownership. He found that foreign

companies control 30 to 40 per cent of the cutting rights of the

resource in British Columbia. He talked about priorities for tenure

policy and he had this to say:

"In my judgment, however, the most important benefits

of public ownership of forest resources are twofold. First, it enables

the Grown to protect and enhance the values of forest lands that do not

provide financial gains to private owners, and environmental values,

public recreation, fisheries, wildlife, aesthetics."

Where is that idea and that concept carried into this new statute?

There is no basis in this statute for the joint — the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) would say "conjoint" — interest of those

agencies in setting policy and public land-use priorities. Dr. Pearse

noted:

"Secondly, public ownership provides the government

with powerful means of shaping the pattern and pace of economic

development. I recommend Po change in the general policy of retaining

Crown title to alienated forest land."

Mr. Speaker, I have already expressed some concern that when we have

to buy back Crown land that may be required for other public uses we

are getting perilously close to the giving over of that Crown land to

sole private use and private ownership of the major companies. Peter

Pearse observed that there should be a healthy, competitive climate for

the disposition of Crown timber.

"There can be little doubt that forest policies of the

past have accelerated the consolidation of the industry into larger

integrated enterprises. My concern is the erosion of opportunities for

others to play a constructive role in the industry, and the growth of

regional monopolies, as large corporations assimilate smaller fines

with their resource rights. I have taken the position in this report

that in the absence of clear evidence that larger, more integrated

corporations are substantially more efficient, forest policy should not

be based in their favour."

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that informed people, people who

want to see competition and a reasonable return on the resource, people

who want to see access to timber for a variety of sizes of operations,

specialty mills and so on, as well as security for the large integrated

firms, agree in term of a general approach and general direction. There

is no question from the analyses of the bill that have been made by my

own advisers — some of them professional foresters, some of them legal

people — from the appraisal and assessment made by private

entrepreneurs — some of the large ones, some of the small ones — that

this statute does not carry into fruition the general concepts and

initiatives advocated by Dr. Pearse. Rather this statute further

entrenches and consolidates monopoly control of the resource in the

hands of those same few companies to the detriment of competition and

to the detriment of a fair and increased return on the resource to the

people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot support this bill. My voice is

getting hoarse and I would certainly appreciate a little more quiet out

of the government members.

I certainly would appreciate a delay of a couple of months before

this statute is dealt with. I appreciate that there is a real need and

a real concern with industry large and small to know what the ground

rules are going to be so that they can continue with their planning and

so on. I'm sensitive to that need, but I want to suggest that since

this very important bill has been in the making for five or six years

with exhaustive study, since the representation and concern from the

community and from sectors of industry have been so intense — and I

suggest they are growing in intensity every day — there is no need to

ram the bill through at this time.

I suggest that three or four months is not going to unduly

jeopardize the industry of this province. I suggest that three or four

months, though, would allow for a great deal more dialogue, a great

deal more understanding, a great deal more involvement of the public,

which I think is so tremendously

[ Page 2322 ]

important. Surely it is in the best interests of

the forest industry of this province to work with the public rather

than in conflict with the public. Surely that should be a reasonable

objective. Surely it is incumbent upon the minister and his staff to

work in harmony with the people who are interested in fish and

wildlife, recreation, parks- and so on, rather than against them in a

conflict arena.

I suggest that the suspension of this bill, the holding over of this

bill, the tabling of it, say until September of this year, is not going

to unduly affect or jeopardize the interests of the industry in this

province. But it certainly will provide more lead time for greater

understanding of the implications of the bill. It will provide more

time for public discussion, public understanding and public input.

Surely that is a desired objective of the government. I am going to

commend as strongly as I possibly can to the minister and to the

government that they think very seriously about this kind of approach

to the statute.

I want to suggest, in conclusion, that when we see introduced at the

start of this day six and a half pages of amendments to this bill, it's

unfair. This is a very complex, very voluminous statute. It's very

difficult for people involved in the industry to understand the statute

and its technical implications, much less me as a politician, much less

the public citizens of this province.

The minister has a staff of technical people to explain it to him.

Despite their good counsel, he has revealed on a number of occasions

that he still doesn't get the picture.

So I think he should have some sensitivity and some understanding

for the needs of the average citizen in this province. It's going to

take some time to reconcile these proposed amendments with the

direction of the provisions of the statute. It's going to take some

time and some analysis before the politicians can debate it in this

House. If the minister insists on ramming it through, he is ramming

through a bill sight unseen, with no opportunity for the public to

understand the direction, the thrust and the implications of the bill

with the new amendments included. I say that is irresponsible. I say

that this bill on the forest industry is much too fundamental to the

needs of everyone to have that kind of cavalier handling by the

Minister of Forests.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly intend to oppose the bill if the minister proceeds.

MR. BARRETT: I rise on a point of order. Mr. Speaker, I have

made a quick review of the amendments and the bill itself. I would like

your ruling, before the debate proceeds, on whether or not, as it

appears in my opinion that such is the case, this debate now offends

standing order 75, perhaps standing order 79, definitely, in my

opinion, standing order 87 and positively standing order 94 (3) . Would

you like to make a note of those, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: I would take a list of the number of standing

orders alleged to be offended and could perhaps review them. Whether or

not the amendments themselves are in order is going to be determined at

the time of Committee of Supply.

MR. BARRETT: It is not the amendments being in order, but the

nature of them. For instance, standing order 87 can be dealt with now,

Mr. Speaker. I think that would be more appropriate. Perhaps 75 would

need longer deliberation. Certainly standing order 94 (3) should be

dealt with right now. I have some questions about 83 but I'd leave that

to you. If a member wishes to add 83, I'd take the member's advice.

MR. SPEAKER: I have also noted 83. Hon. members, I will take all five

of the cited standing orders into review and come back to the House without

prejudice to the debate whatsoever.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it would be appropriate for me, in terms of

the comments I have, if I could have a ruling on those standing orders, especially

87 and 75, now because the debate may be ruled out of order unless we do indeed

find that the practice conforms to those two particular standing orders at this

very moment.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, pending a considered and advised

report to the House, I think that perhaps we should continue with

second reading. Perhaps even before this sitting is over I can have a

decision.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your very wise counsel, but I

think it would be more appropriate if we had a five-minute recess just to check

out those two particular standing orders.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I think the practice of the House

has always provided that Mr. Speaker can reserve a decision, provided,

of course, that Mr. Speaker does not prejudice the debate by his

decision or by his delay. Therefore we reserve decision.

[ Page 2323 ]

MR. BARRETT: The point I'm trying to make is that it may be

totally inappropriate to continue the business of the House at this

point unless we at least have a clarification of 87, 75 and 94 (3),

which wouldn't take more than five minutes, in my opinion.

MR. SPEAKER . Hon. members, I think that perhaps the best-advised procedure

would be for the Speaker to reserve decision. Therefore I will reserve decision

and bring back to you an advised decision in due course.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, but I'm asking for

a ruling now.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I'm telling you that it is going to be

a reserved decision.

MR. BARRETT: Well, then, how about a recess until we get the reservation?

MR. SPEAKER: I think that the reserved decision will come in without prejudice, and that's the way we will proceed.

Next speaker, please.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, what is the practice of

this House in asking for an

interpretation of standing orders at the

time that I am asking for them? I didn't ask for reservation. I'm

asking for a ruling now before we proceed with this debate. We may be

out of order, and the Chair should instruct us in that regard.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. member is entirely in order is asking

for a decision now, but the Speaker has already declared that the

decision is going to be reserved. That is the prerogative of the Chair.

It is a practice of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that you may have a

prerogative. I understand that. But if you are making a ruling that you

won't give a ruling immediately on those standing orders, then I

challenge that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a ruling. It's just an upholding of the practices of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, you and I don't want to get

into an argument because you've got more power than I have. But I would

like to point out to you that if you are not going to give a ruling on

my request to have the

interpretation of these standing orders

immediately, but are relying on practice, then there has to be a ruling

why you are relying on practice. If you are going to make such a

ruling, I'd like to know what that ruling is.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no ruling, hon. member. A reserved

decision is not only in order, but it is perhaps the majority of the

time the practice of the House. There are occasions when Mr. Speaker is

prepared to give a decision at the drop of a hat, but I think that the

House deserves a considered opinion. Therefore, in the opinion of the

Chair, decision will be reserved.

MR. BARRETT: In the opinion of this member....

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed. Next speaker. We are on second reading of Bill 14.

MR. BARRETT: I have asked for a ruling on standing orders. You've

given an opinion, and I'm entitled to give an opinion in return unless you

give a ruling. I'm not going to have my rights....

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member standing on a further point of order?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, on a point of order. I've asked for ruling on standing orders 75, 79, 87 and 94 on this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: I have that information, thank you.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, and I want a ruling now.

MR. SPEAKER: The ruling will be reserved, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Is that a ruling that you are reserving it?

MR. SPEAKER: That's the fact.

MR. BARRETT: I challenge that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: That's not a ruling, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: If that's not a ruling, then I want an answer to my point of order. I don't want opinions; I want an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Next speaker, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have the floor on a point of order. Either I get a ruling or I don't give up my point of order. I don't

[ Page 2324 ]

wish to engage in arguments.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member cite the standing order under which he has that prerogative?

MR. BARRETT: Will you cite what you are making your opinion on, then?

MR. SPEAKER: I have the practice of the House.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I have the practice of the House in my opinion that I get an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the hon. member please cite the standing

order under which he has the prerogative to maintain the floor of the

House on a point of order endlessly?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, will you cite the...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: I have the floor on a point of order and I'm

asking for a ruling, not a delay. I'm being absolutely within my rights

in asking for that ruling. If you express an opinion that you wish to

delay, that is at the request of the House. I'm the member asking for

an immediate decision, and I don't go along with the request for the

delay. That's my right to say so.

MR. SPEAKER: And the Speaker has the right to reserve a decision.

MR. BARRETT: To rule.

MR. SPEAKER: To reserve a decision.

MR. BARRETT: It has to be a ruling; otherwise how can we run the House?

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it appears that the hon. Leader of the Opposition...

MR. BARRETT: I want a ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: ...is impeding the business of the House.

MR. BARRETT: No, I'm not impeding the business of the House. We have rules, and I want a ruling on the rule.

MR. SPEAKER: In speaking to the point of order raised by the

hon. Leader of the Opposition, the upholding of the practice of the

House which provides that the Speaker, at his discretion, may reserve a

decision is not a ruling and therefore is not subject to appeal.

However, the Chair must rule that debate on second reading will

continue while the decision is being reserved, and that is a ruling.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I challenge your ruling.

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Waterland

Hewitt

Mair

Bawlf

Nielsen

Vander Zalm

Davidson

Davis

Haddad

Kahl

Kempf

Kerster

Lloyd

McCarthy

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Chabot

Curtis

Calder

Shelford

Jordan

Smith

Bawtree

Rogers

Mussallem

Veitch

NAYS — 17

Gibson

Lauk

Lea

Cocke

Dailly

Stupich

King

Barrett

Macdonald

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we proceed to second

reading, the hon. Leader of the Opposition stood on his feet and cited

at least four, perhaps five, standing orders which he believes to have

been offended. However, he has offered to the Chair no observations

from those standing orders.

In the short time which was available to me during the division bell

I have had time to just briefly glance at the standing orders and there

is no apparent offence. Therefore would the hon. Leader of the

Opposition please assist the Speaker in his reserved decision?

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In relation to standing order

75, I'd like to draw your attention to the fact that no bill may be

introduced either in blank or imperfect shape. The imperfect shape is

the six and a half pages of amendments that indeed may put the original

bill in imperfect shape.

No. 79 says that no bill shall be read the second time until it has been printed and

[ Page 2325 ]

distributed. That one I had some question about. I

wanted your ruling on the fact that it was printed and distributed

without the six and a half pages of amendments — that one's still foggy

in my mind. I don't know, that may not apply.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw your attention to standing order 87:

"It shall be the duty of the Law Clerk of the House to revise all bills

after their first reading, and to certify thereon that the same are

correct; and in every subsequent stage of such bills...." Now since

we're in second reading, I have not seen the certification of the Law

Clerk. Perhaps such certification could be made available to me, again

in light of the arguments I gave on standing order 75.

Standing order 94 (3), one that I'm very familiar with and have done

extensive research on, says: "To revise, print and put marginal notes

on all bills" and be generally responsible for the correctness of bills

in their various stages...." Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate

you taking that under advisement. My concern is that this whole debate

not be wiped out because of some careless clerical error, and that is

the whole point of my questions.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I will take those remarks into consideration.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'd like to

participate in this debate, which may, indeed, be out of order; but I

will participate in any event.

I'd like to start off my participation in this debate by asking the

minister: why did you bring in the amendment so late? What's your hurry?

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Is this question period?

MR. BARRETT: You brought it in after question period, is that

it? Someone who has a less understanding mind than I have would be

inclined to believe that the minister is trying to rush something

through past the people of British Columbia without a proper amount of

debate. If that allegation were to be made, certainly the minister

would give substance to that allegation by coming into this House and

providing significant changes to the bill to only two or three people,

as I understand it. I never got a copy of this. I had to borrow this —

and sign for it — from the House Leader. I had to sign for this from

the House Leader because these amendments are precious. And I

understand the Liberal leader got a copy. I don't know if the

Conservative leader got a copy. But as Leader of the Official

Opposition, there's no notice to me of significant changes in this bill

and six and a half pages of legalese. I would venture to guess that the

minister could not sit in his place and rattle off under his breath the

sections that are even being amended. I challenge the minister to get

three out of five correct.

You see, he doesn't know himself what is being amended.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Is he in second reading?

MR. BARRETT: I am in second reading. Sit calm; take it easy; you'll get your turn to get excited.

During the comments by the minister, dealing with an industry that

affects 50 cents of every dollar in this province, he spoke for about

15 minutes and sat down. If there is anything that is absolutely

scandalous, it is the fact that after all the work that has gone into

this bill by the Pearse royal commission, by preceding governments and

by preceding ministers, all he can give is less than 15 minutes as an

introduction on second reading of this bill. Mr. Speaker, it is not a

fact that the minister was chosen for this job because of his inability

to communicate, but after hearing what he had to say and what was not

available in terms of what he had to say, it was obvious he was chosen

for this job because he doesn't understand.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Shame.

MR. BARRETT: Shame? It certainly is a shame, and I want to

applaud the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for categorizing

exactly what has gone on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition was out of the House when I read from page 485 of the 18th edition of Sir Erskine May .

It talks about the scope of debate on second reading. Debate on the

stages of the bill should be confined to the bill and should not be

extended to a criticism of the administration.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'm glad you're drawing that to the attention of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

HON. MR. MAIR: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, this is the

second time I've noticed the Leader of the Opposition remain standing

when Mr. Speaker is addressing the House. Throughout the points of

order he raised a few

[ Page 2326 ]

moments ago, and throughout the time Mr. Speaker

spoke, he remained on his feet, and I would refer Mr. Speaker to the

19th edition of Sir Erskine May , at the bottom of page 441.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it is a worthy observation, and

perhaps all members should take it to heart that whenever the Chair is

speaking, it is wise for members to take their seats. I notice in other

Houses that the Speaker stands, which commands that all members take

their seats. I think we would not like to resort to that here.

MR. GIBSON: On that point of order on the propriety of

debate, Mr. Speaker, I would mention that the same edition of May says

that on second reading debate is not strictly limited to the contents

of the bill, but other methods of attaining its proposed object may be

considered. I would assume that would include another minister — I

don't know.

MR. SPEAKER: That assumption does damage to page 485, so it's likely that the assumption is wrong.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, all of this has done damage to my time. I hope that the appropriate rulings and points of order have been noted.

I want to deal with the excitement of the Minister of Municipal

Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is partly responsible for

the increased burden of taxation on the people and the homeowners of

this province precisely because taxation collection under this proposed

bill from the forest industry will be dramatically reduced. The

homeowners of British Columbia will be forced to carry a share of taxes

that truly belongs on the backs of the international corporations who

have a monopoly control of the industry in this province.

My dear friend the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is nervous. I expect to hear him speak in this debate.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Blah, blah, blah, blah — that is your only

style. The only style you have is personal attack. You don't know any

other way but personal attack. You have a history of it in this House.

You are a disgrace.

MR. SKELLY: Panicky Hugh!

HON. MR. CURTIS: No, just very angry.

[Mr. Speaker rises.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing please try and restrain himself?

(Mr. Speaker resumes his seat.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hysteria of

the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, who is involved in

vindictive personal attack across this floor. I understand the

minister. The minister is attempting to smokebomb the issue that taxes

will increase in the name of the Crown and will be loaded onto the

taxpayer under your department.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. We're on Bill 14.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, Mr. Speaker. I don't want to upset

the cabinet. After all, just by having the division we forced them all

out of their little snoozy little nests or wherever they were.

MR. SPEAKER: Bill 14 is the Forest Act.

MR. BARRETT: This debate is on a very important issue

affecting 50 cents of every dollar of revenue in this province and only

two ministers are in the House. Let that go in the record, the Minister

of Forests — who has now fled — and the Minister of Consumer and

Corporate Affairs. Oh, there he is, getting advice. Lord knows, he

needs it.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Your style is 1950s grotesque.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker, I have been grievously wounded.

HON. MR. CURTIS: What bombast! Why don't you get rid of that leader?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor. Please proceed, and please keep your remarks relevant to the debate.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, will you please defend me from those hysterical attacks from that minister, who is having a fit?

HON. MR. CURTIS: At least I fit my clothes.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, lo and behold, let it not be for me to

observe comments on personal attacks, folks. Sanctimonious comments by

that minister aside, that minister used to be a

[ Page 2327 ]

Liberal, and a Conservative, and now a Socred.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, Bill 14, please.

MR. BARRETT: I'll deal with that minister's hysteria later.

Could you bring the House to order, Mr. Speaker. I can't possibly

debate when there is a distraction down there.

Mr. Speaker, I find it pretty interesting that the minister, who has

brought in all these amendments in this important debate, won't even

sit in his place and listen to some of the comments. I'd like to refer

the minister to an evaluation made by the royal commission of Mr.

Pearse, and the fact that Mr. Pearse made the observation that foreign

companies control 30 to 40 per cent of the cutting rights of our

forests in this province. In the last few years, Mr. Pearse says, the

provincial government has acquired in its own right significant

corporate assets previously owned by foreign interests.

When Pearse spoke about the provincial government acquiring some

interest in our own assets, it was the New Democratic Party government

who struck out against the international corporation control of our

forests and took the opportunity of purchasing, on behalf of the people

of British Columbia, a significant area of forest for management and

control by the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I hold no suspicion against the people of this

province, and I have no doubt in their skills and ability in dealing

with their own affairs and their own resources. I am proud of the fact

that under Canadian Cellulose the people of British Columbia, for the

first time in the history of this province, had a direct share in the

control and ownership of our own resources.

Mr. Speaker, we are not some Latin American banana republic that

needs to be viewed on a paternalistic basis that only the outsiders

know how to deal with our resources. We are not some backward nation

that must get down and genuflect to the international corporations and

thank them for their capital investment and their technological skills

in developing our forests. We have large universities and educational

institutions that are actually geared towards providing the technical

and professional experience in dealing with the primary resource of

this province, the forests.

At a time when British Columbia was finally beginning to grow out of

its adolescence in terms of being subjugated to international

corporations and their domination of our forest industry, an

unfortunate event took place with the election of perhaps the most

reactionary government in the history of British Columbia. Under this

reactionary government, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with a bill today

that will, in effect, increase dramatically the foreign ownership and

control of our primary resource, the forest industry, without

competition and in perpetuity in a way that insults the hard work and

the dedication and the commitment of the average citizen of this

province.

If there was ever a need for a time for televised recording of the

debates, it's this debate now, Mr. Speaker. As the minister pointed

out, this is the first change in our forest bill of any significance

since 1912. It is the most significant bill that I have seen brought

forward in this House in my time here. It is going to affect every

citizen of this province for at least the next 100,200 or perhaps 500

years. The major thrust of this legislation — and let's get it clear so

that everybody understands it — is to hand over once and for all 90 per

cent of the control of the primary resource of this province, the

forests, into the hands of the international monopolies, at the same

time that other actions of this government are presently underway to

sell off the limited interest that the people of British Columbia have

in their own forest.

Peter Pearse said: "Foreign companies control 30 to 40 per cent of

the cutting rights." Can you imagine any Latin American country that

would stand by, in terms of the new awareness in the Third World, and

allow its own major resource not just to have a 30 to 40 per cent

control by foreign interest, but actually allow a debate to take place

to increase that control by multinational corporations?

Mr. Pearse said:

"In my judgment the most important benefits of public

ownership of forest resources are twofold. First, it enables the Crown

to protect and enhance the values of forest lands that do not provide

financial gains to private owners, and environmental values, public

recreation, fisheries, wildlife and aesthetics.

"Secondly, public ownership provides the government

with powerful means of shaping the pattern and pace of economic

development. I recommend no change in the general policy of retaining

Crown land to unalienated forest land."

This is a primary recommendation of Mr. Pearse that says, that cries

out, that asks, all people of this province to understand that whether

you are a socialist, a free-

[ Page 2328 ]

enterpriser, whether you're a Liberal, a

Conservative or a Socred — whoever you are, wherever you are — the most

precious asset you have, through your government, is the ownership and

control of those forest lands. That has been our tradition under every

form of government since 1899 in this province, and on this very day

that should go down as "Black Wednesday" in British Columbia, we are

going to launch legislation that says to the people of British

Columbia: "You may no longer be masters in your own house." This is an

absolute abdication of confidence, trust and, in effect, commitment,

not only to the present generation in this province but to every

succeeding generation in this province who may strive as Canadians and

as British Columbians to find some place in the sun for themselves in

terms of economic development.

Mr. Speaker, there has been increasing evidence throughout the whole

province of British Columbia that more and more people are becoming

alarmed at the efforts made by this government and the rush being made

by this government to slam this legislation through, to quietly get it

through the dog days of June and hope that everyone forgets it. I find

it interesting that the very people who supported Social Credit most on

the myth of free enterprise and free opportunity — those small

businessmen, those small truck loggers, those small operators

throughout this province who said they don't want any socialism — now

find that instead of democratic socialism and a fair chance and a fair

access to that resource that we provided as a government, this

government is going to hand 90 per cent of the forests over to the big

companies and the big monopolies. What about those little chambers of

commerce and those little groups out there that had hoped for the best?

Here is a letter, Mr. Speaker, just sent to the minister, and no

wonder he wants to rush through this legislation. This is from the

Truck Loggers Association, which embodies the spirit of pioneering and

commitment in this province that led to the development of the

competitive forest industry that we allowed in public, private and in

joint venturing.

"Hon. Mr. Waterland:

"I attach hereto a copy of a report by the Council of

Forest Industries, in which it is implied you are trying to find the

politically acceptable way to neutralize contractors."

That's what is going on behind the scenes, according to an accusation by the Truck Loggers Association.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Minister, if you have nothing sensible to say and you have a sick stomach, head for the corridor.

Mr. Speaker, the implication of the report — this is a very serious

charge and I'm making it here in this House as I read this letter to

the minister — is that if COFI members throw a few crumbs to the

contractors, the new Forest Act will not opposed by this association

and others.

Mr. Minister, I am directed to remind you it is the efficient

specialist who provides benefit under

section 27 (5) (

a) to (

e) inclusive.

Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to hear myself over the shouting.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Nobody is listening anyway.

MR. BARRETT: That's what you hope for; that's what you really

hope for. You sincerely hope that nobody in this province will listen

to what the truck loggers are saying, to what the independent people

are saying, to the concerned citizens of this province. A serious

charge has been made in writing by the Truck Loggers Association.

Then they go on to say that monopoly control of public resources will exist, and 25 years has proven it.

"Moreover, most particularly after your comments at

the Premier's breakfast that we just want some timber to get into

manufacturing, we have to ask why not. More particularly, the comment

indicates you do not understand the Truck Loggers Association

represents citizens involved in lumber, plywood, shingle, secondary

manufacturing, timber owners and specialist loggers everywhere, and

even one operator committed to enter pulp. This association was founded

by timber owners more than 33 years ago to defend its members from the

pressures of foreign monopolies, taking over public resources and the

lack of wisdom of the government in protecting and enlarging those

takeovers." In that regard, Mr. Speaker, the Truck Loggers Association

of British Columbia says to the minister: "The new Forest Act is worse

than the old and we will redouble our efforts to oppose it."

Mr. Minister, if you don't like hearing from the New Democratic

Party, if you don't like hearing from the Liberal Party, and if you

don't like hearing from the Conservative Party, how do you feel about

the truck loggers telling you that you are giving away the forests in a

monopoly controlled situation?

Mr. Speaker, I have here a confidential memo

[ Page

2329 ]

and it is written here signed by Mr. Moonen.

HON. MR. HEWITT: If you've got it, it's not confidential. Where did you find it?

MR. BARRETT: Well, I certainly didn't steal it like telegram that showed up in the last election campaign.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I see, you're back in history again.

HON. MR. MAIR: You're a poor loser, Dave.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not a poor loser. I'm a great fighter for

the people of British Columbia, something this government hasn't

learned. You tell me where you got your campaign funds from. You tell

me that this legislation isn't a payoff of campaign funds; you tell me

that. You tell me that Crown Zellerbach, MacMillan Bloedel and

Weyerhaeuser never gave you a penny during the election campaign. Even

my friend from Surrey is smiling at that one. He knows who paid for

their election and now he knows who is getting paid back today in this

legislation. Mark that smile down.

I sat in this House with that member's venerable father, and that

member's father warned what would happen when control took a central

form in the forest industry.

Here is the memo, Mr. Speaker.

"Gentlemen:

"Report No. 21.

"There are two issues surrounding the Forest Act which

appear to bother the opposition parties more than any others. Both

relate to the 'old bogey-man'."

I'm glad he put that in quotes. I wouldn't like him to refer to some unlamented former member from Kamloops in that regard.

"The first, expressed by Gordon Gibson, relates to the

TF holdings, and the second, which along with the first bothers the

NDP, is that of contractor relationships. Gibson's specific objections

revolve around his view that there should be public hearings on all

existing TFLs as they are changed over to their new form prior to 1985."

It goes on to say here that he feels that conditions should be totally renegotiated

during the rollover period and that the Forest Service should do the inventory

rather than the TFL holder. Well, why not? Under this bill it's the person

who holds the forests that's going to send the government a letter telling

them: "Everything's okay. We've just done the inventory. Don't

come up here and look." What kind of administration is that? They don't

do that on welfare. He could release half of his secret service in the welfare;

we might get a proper inventory in forests. You've got the wrong focus,

Mr. Minister. It isn't the people on welfare who are going to swipe the

trees, it's someone else. They don't even get toothpicks.

I refer back to that member in this memo, Mr. Speaker. "Upon

renegotiation a TF holder should perhaps be granted only 80 per cent of

the fibre necessary for existing manufacturing facilities." Good on

you, Mr. Member. Get that for the Vancouver Sun . Barrett said: "Good on for old Gibson!" That ought to kill his career. (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to go on and say that this member is quoted in the secret report as having other opinions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. BARRETT: It goes on to say: "Eighty per cent of the fibre

would encourage an open market situation for the remaining of

requirements." You stand accused, sir, of suggesting that free

enterprise competition may have a — place in the forests of British

Columbia. He is sure in his own mind that in existing TFLs there is

enormous undercutting, and that this unused quota should be taken from

the licensee. Why not?

MR. LAUK: He's so excited he's applauding himself.

MR. BARRETT: Well, he's got the unanimous support of all his members.

Victoria report No. 21, page 2: "In addition to the above point the

NDP is adhering to the little guy syndrome." Oh, did you hear that? We

are accused by the monopolies in the forest industry of fighting for

the little guy, and I plead guilty. Somebody's got to fight for the

little guy around here, and we know it isn't that outfit over there.

"In addition to the above point the NDP is adhering to the little

guy syndrome, and is looking for some way in which small contractors

can move into the industry as manufacturers." Get that straight for the

debate on free enterprise throughout the province of British Columbia.

The large corporations are not hypocrites, they're not two-faced, but

they're sure as heck schizophrenic. Out in public they are saying:

"Yes, we believe in free enterprise. We want the pioneering spirit for

the little guys." But in their secret reports they say: "Some nuts

actually believe in the little guys having a chance. It's a syndrome."

What hypocrisy! That government is

[ Page 2330 ]

in the hands of the majors in the forest industry and there's no question about it.

Here's one on the minister. "The subject of contracting is also

bothering the minister. He tends to feel that his major political

problem revolves around the contractors, particularly in the interior."

No wonder! He represents the interior, and those contractors are not

going to vote for him again. He has got a problem. He believes there

are too many instances where contractors have been "shafted" and "have

had the rug pulled out from under them." And there were other similar

phrases used by that minister. Well, isn't that interesting? He's

pleading the case of his political problem and he's describing through

jargon, clichés and euphemisms his local concern, but someone forgot to

tell him that he's the minister and he can stop them from being shafted

and he can stop them from having the rug pulled out from them.

"Waterland is basically and philosophically opposed to the standard

contract form called for by the BCILA brief, but would like to see

industry, contractors and licensees work out some form of guidelines

and principles by which negotiations between the parties can be

amicably settled."

Do you know how these arguments can be amicably settled, Mr.

Speaker? We found out when we were government, when the little

contractor was getting hosed on the price of chips. They came to us and

they said: "Help us. We're drowning. We're getting lousy prices on

chips." We went out and we gave them a fair price on chips. They

thanked us behind closed doors, but they were so scared they went out

publicly and said: "We're against socialism. But thank God, they saved

our business."

Now they've got this minister who is reported in this confidential

memo as being worried about how he handled this problem politically. I

know I've got to the member from Salmon Arm. He understands exactly

what's going on. I know that he's going to get up and fight for the

little free enterpriser.

MR. LEA: They did it in caucus, but that's private.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in this area he is fully supported

by his northern back-bench colleagues, some of whom do favour the

standard contract form.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, you've been written about anyway. At least somebody knows you're here.

There obviously is some role for the backbenchers. What it is, the

Lord only knows. But according to this confidential memo, some of then

are a little bit upset. How upset? Let's hear about the fight for the

little guy from you backbenchers. I can hardly wait.

MR. LAUK: Don't hold your breath.

MR. BARRETT: Listen to this, Mr. Speaker: "Perhaps industry

would be well advised to at least undertake discussions with the

contractor g